Letting go: Corporate dominance gives rise to responsibility

I think cause marketing is a strategy driven more often than not by a desire to increase sales with a search for a good social/environmental cause to hook the consumer. I am fine with this. If there is a TBL benefit, its good . In fact , we will see it much more - P&G are driving most of their mktng this way now. Enthusiastic marketeers may not realise there is a backlash - ie highlighting the company as a "good"company (see, i did it too!) and driving scrutiny of their other practices. Paradoxically, this is also good, as companies will ultimately realise their cause marketing campaigns rely on a more general level of trust in the business. If you dont trust Gap, you wont buy their product Red. There was a good discussion on this in SSIR on cause mktng as corporate philanthropy - see it here http://jm.ly/XY0ivA

I think we have to feed corporations many carrots, but we have to have a good supply of sticks in our back pocket.

Elaine, I agree - I am just forced to admit sometime that as limited and superficial as it is, sometimes boxes are just too easy to use. I always appreciate your comments to reiterate large scale processes and vision - and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the cause marketing that other comments have alluded to (fair trade, Product RED etc.) vs. the company's overall practices. I also agree that many "bad" companies are now in the lead regarding CSR - I've actually followed Walmart via Act Now and now Saatchi & Saatchi and fully applaud their efforts. As the world's largest employer - we can't afford NOT to support their attempts at doing good (and of course help steer them in the right direction)

Anastasia - your explanations to your kids are a great example of how retailers can truly provide a platform for education and social change by presenting consumers with responsible options. Especially given the companies history and the general loss of small businesses in the era of mega corporations it's great to see a return to such examples and that parents like you are seeking them out!

hi Megan, good post, thanks. Labelling corporations good or bad is only half the truth. It's what is in between that makes the difference, which in this case is the responsiveness to stakeholder feedback and the underlying processes to manage impacts and embedding these in the organization. I have read Howard Shultz's book and seen SB's recent "good" intitiatives, but also remember their stance against Ethiopian coffee growers, or the fact that their policy of leaving taps running wastes massive amounts of water. I think we are often too quick to judge , and our expectation of corporate perfection is unrealistic. What is important is process to manage material issues and listening to stakeholders, and it seems to me that Starbucks are on that map. There are many other companies whose "bad" reputation is turning around despite not reaching perfection eg, McDonalds, Microsoft, CocaCola and even all-consuming Wal-Mart is part of this same cycle .

I am inspired to walk into Starbucks and explain 2 my children what Ethos Water program is about, why I am buying the red coffee over the yellow one… I can walk into other very well known coffee chains and not have that opportunity. In addition there are companies such as Shaklee that have many socially responsible elements to their business plan, such as planting trees for each person who orders a large cleaning kit, or their project mahamma, which help women in need, these are just a few. I am grateful for the small things; because they have a CEO with a conscience or because their marketing departments are 'forcing' them to.

Shifts in how companies are doing 'good' are becoming much greater today than yesterday or last year. The responsibility to 'pay it forward' is something we used to get from the small town businesses based on relationships, a caring element etc. As our world grows, and businesses get bigger it is important to recognize these efforts by larger corporations and thank them for their contributions. Regardless of how small or less bad you view it.

Thanks Patrick - and definitely, labeling good/bad is far too limited but also so easy to do! As I was poking around and writing this post I had a similar thought to you when I found Starbucks "Red" version coffee. They're donating a $1 of each sale to the fight against Aids - but there are so many factors inherent in coffee production and pricing that need to be addressed and would make such a bigger impact. While I tried to highlight one of the areas where Starbucks is setting a great example - the fair trade and charity coffee vs. the rest of their coffee issue highlights a major recurring theme in CSR. You're right that it's not enough to simply have a few elements of a product that give back, when the rest is based on low wages and unfair buying. I'm looking forward to what Starbucks will be sharing with JustMeans and how as a community we can work to address this!

Looking forward to it!

Thanks Paul - and agreed!

it is surely simplistic to label any company "good" or "bad". I do it all the time... The problem I have with Starbucks and too many other multinationals is that their marketing departments are brilliant at highlighting, say, their fair trade coffee, while underplaying the fact that they pay as little as they can get away with to the suppliers of the other 99% of their coffee. Being less bad doesn't make them good. You're right to praise them for the good that they do but don't lose perspective.